E U R O P E A NCOMMISSION

European Research Area

projects

Studies and reports

KI-N

A-24537-EN

-C

Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010

Winds of change?

This is the seventh in a series of Eurobarometer surveys on life sciences and biotechnology conducted in 1991, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2010. This latest survey, carried out in February 2010, was based on a representative sample of 30,800 respondents from the 27 Member States, plus Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Issues such as regenerative medicine, production of Genetically Modied Organisms (GMOs, both transgenic and cisgenic), biobanks, biofuels and other innovations such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology, in addition to broader issues such as the governance of science and the engagement of citizens, were investigated. These surveys provide an indication of the distribution of opinions and attitudes in the public at large and evidence of changes in these perceptions over time. To ensure the continuing independence and high reputation of this series of surveys, the Commission charged a team of social scientists throughout Europe with designing the questionnaire and analysing the responses.

Euro

pean

s an

d B

iote

chno

logy

in 2

010

- W

inds

of c

hang

e?

Interested in European research?

Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French, German and Spanish. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:

European Commission Directorate-General for ResearchCommunication UnitB-1049 Brussels, BelgiumFax (32-2) 29-58220E-mail: research-eu@ec.europa.euInternet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research

Directorate L Science, Economy and SocietyUnit L.3 Governance and Ethics

Contact: Lino Paula

European CommissionOffice SDME 07/80B-1049 Brussels

Tel. +32 2 29 63873Fax +32 2 29 84694E-mail: lino.paula@ec.europa.eu

Directorate E Biotechnology, Agriculture and FoodUnit E.2 Biotechnology

Contact: John Claxton

European CommissionOffice SDME 08/07B-1049 Brussels

Tel. +32 2 29 84375Fax +32 2 29 91860E-mail: john.claxton@ec.europa.eu

How to obtain EU publications

Free publications :

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Unions representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications :

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union) :

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Europeans and biotechnology in 2010

Winds of change?

A report to the European Commissions Directorate-General for Research

by

George Gaskell*, Sally Stares, Agnes Allansdottir, Nick Allum, Paula Castro, Yilmaz Esmer, Claude Fischler, Jonathan Jackson, Nicole Kronberger,

Jrgen Hampel, Niels Mejlgaard, Alex Quintanilha, Andu Rammer, Gemma Revuelta, Paul Stoneman, Helge Torgersen and Wolfgang Wagner.

October 2010

*George Gaskell (g.gaskell@lse.ac.uk) and colleagues designed, analysed and interpreted the Eurobarometer 73.1 on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology as part of the research project Sensitive Technologies and European Public

Ethics (STEPE), funded by the Science in Society Programme of the ECs Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do

not represent the view of DG Research

Directorate-General for Research Science in Society and Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, & Biotechnology2010 EUR 24537 EN

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010

ISBN 978-92-79-16878-9doi 10.2777/23393

European Union, 2010 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF)

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers

or these calls may be billed

Contents

Overview of key findings .................................................................................................... 6

Introduction......................................................................................................................12

1. Optimism about technology.......................................................................................13

2. Emerging technologies...............................................................................................21 2.1 Nanotechnology .....................................................................................................21 2.2 Biofuels .................................................................................................................26 2.3 Synthetic biology .....................................................................................................29

3. Biotechnologies for food production..........................................................................36 3.1 GM food .................................................................................................................36 3.2 Animal cloning for food production ............................................................................41 3.3 Transgenic and cisgenic apples .................................................................................46

4. Regenerative medicine...............................................................................................51

5. Biobanks.....................................................................................................................60

6. Governance and trust.................................................................................................69

7. Familiarity and engagement with technologies.........................................................80

8. Pillars of truth: religion and science ..........................................................................89

9. Climate change.........................................................................................................101

10. Public ethics, technological optimism and support for biotechnology ...................105

References ......................................................................................................................110

Annex 1 ...........................................................................................................................112

Annex 2 ...........................................................................................................................128

3

Figures

Figure 1: Generalised technological optimism and pessimism......................................................15

Figure 2: Optimism and pessimism regarding eight technologies, EU27........................................16

Figure 3: Index of optimism about six technologies....................................................................18

Figure 4: Awareness of nanotechnology, EU27..........................................................................22

Figure 5: Encouragement for nanotechnology (excluding DKs)....................................................23

Figure 6: Perceptions of nanotechnology as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27

(excluding DKs).....................................................................................................................25

Figure 7: Opinions regarding first generation and sustainable biofuels, EU27................................27

Figure 8: Support for first generation and sustainable biofuels (excluding DKs).............................28

Figure 9: Awareness of synthetic biology, EU27.........................................................................30

Figure 10: Priority given to finding out about risks and benefits (versus other issues) in relation to

synthetic biology....................................................................................................................32

Figure 11: Approval of and ambivalence towards synthetic biology..............................................34

Figure 12: Awareness of GM food, EU27...................................................................................37

Figure 13: Support for GM food, EU27......................................................................................37

Figure 14: Perceptions of GM food as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27 (excluding

DKs).....................................................................................................................................38

Figure 15: Awareness of animal cloning for food production, EU27..............................................42

Figure 16: Perceptions of animal cloning for food products as beneficial, safe, inequitable and

unnatural, EU27 (excluding DKs) .............................................................................................43

Figure 17: Encouragement for GM food and animal cloning for food products (excluding DKs)........45

Figure 18: Perceptions of transgenic and cisgenic apples, EU27 ..................................................48

Figure 19: Support for transgenic and cisgenic apples (excluding DKs).........................................49

Figure 20: Levels of approval of biomedical research and synthetic biology, EU27 .........................53

Figure 21: Levels of approval for embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research and gene therapy,

2005 and 2010, Europe-wide ..................................................................................................55

Figure 22: Levels of approval for human embryonic stem cell research, 2005 and 2010 (excluding

DKs).....................................................................................................................................56

Figure 23: Public views on ethical positions and regenerative medicine, EU27...............................58

Figure 24: Principles of governance for synthetic biology (DKs excluded) .....................................72

Figure 25: Principles of governance for animal cloning (DKs excluded).........................................73

Figure 26: Public confidence in the 'biotechnology system' (excluding DKs) ..................................78

Figure 27: Familiarity with five technologies: percentages of people who have heard of each

technology............................................................................................................................82

Figure 28: Engagement with five technologies, EU27.................................................................83

Figure 29: 'Worry' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27.............................85

Figure 30: 'Safety' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27.............................86

Figure 31: Benefits' index for three technologies, by level of engagement, EU27 ..........................87

Figure 32: Index of generalised optimism and index of pessimism, by religious denomination, 32

European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................90

4

Figure 33: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious denomination, 32

European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................90

Figure 34: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious denomination, 32 European countries (DKs

excluded)..............................................................................................................................91

Figure 35: Ethical objection to human embryonic stem cell research, by religious attendance, 32

European countries (DKs excluded)..........................................................................................92

Figure 36: Should science prevail over ethics? By religious attendance, 32 European countries (DKs

excluded)..............................................................................................................................93

Figure 37: Parental and family university education/work in science, by age group of respondent,

EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................94

Figure 38: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science in the family, EU27 ........................96

Figure 39: Technological optimism and pessimism, by science education, EU27 ............................96

Figure 40: Support for nanotechnology, by family science background, EU27 (DKs excluded).........98

Figure 41: Support for GM food, by family science background, EU27 (DKs excluded)....................99

Figure 42: Support for GM food and nanotechnology, by science education, EU27 (DKs excluded) ..99

Figure 43: Favoured solutions for halting climate change..........................................................102

Figure 44: Preference for 'changing ways of life' solution to climate change and confidence that one's

government will adopt such policies, by country......................................................................104

Figure 45: Relationships between clusters of countries.............................................................109

Tables

Table 1: Trends in the index of optimism for biotechnology/genetic engineering ...........................20

Table 2: Issues about which respondents would like to know more in relation to synthetic biology,

EU27 (excluding DKs).............................................................................................................31

Table 3: Trends in support for GM food (excluding DKs).............................................................40

Table 4: Perceptions of safety, environmental impacts and naturalness of GM food and transgenic

apples, EU27 (excluding DKs)..................................................................................................50

Table 5: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for synthetic biology,

EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................70

Table 6: Segmentation of the European public on principles of governance for animal cloning, EU27

(DKs excluded)......................................................................................................................71

Table 7: Principles of governance for synthetic biology, technological optimism, and support for GM

food, EU27 (DKs excluded) .....................................................................................................74

Table 8: Principles of governance for animal cloning, technological optimism, and support for

nanotechnology, EU27 (DKs excluded) .....................................................................................74

Table 9: Trust in key actors and trends from 1999.....................................................................76

Table 10: Trend in trust surplus/deficit for the biotechnology industry (DKs excluded)...................77

Table 11: Percentages of science graduates by age group, EU27.................................................95

Table 12: Principles of governance for animal cloning and synthetic biology by science education,

EU27 (DKs excluded) .............................................................................................................98

Table 13: Public ethics: five clusters.......................................................................................106

Table 14: Public ethics and support for biotechnology..............................................................107

5

Overview of key findings

The latest Eurobarometer survey on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology, based on representative

samples from 32 European countries and conducted in February 2010, points to a new era in the

relations between science and society. While entrenched views about GM food are still evident, the crisis

of confidence in technology and regulation that characterised the 1990s a result of BSE, contaminated

blood and other perceived regulatory failures is no longer the dominant perspective. In 2010 we see a

greater focus on technologies themselves: are they safe? Are they useful? And are there 'technolite'

alternatives with more acceptable ethical-moral implications? Europeans are also increasingly concerned

about energy and sustainability. There is no rejection of the impetus towards innovation: Europeans are

in favour of appropriate regulation to balance the market, and wish to be involved in decisions about

new technologies when social values are at stake.

Technological optimism

A majority of Europeans are optimistic about biotechnology (53 per cent optimistic; 20 per cent say

dont know). In comparison, they are more optimistic about brain and cognitive enhancement (59; 20),

computers and information technology (77; 6), wind energy (84; 6) and solar energy (87; 4), but are

less optimistic about space exploration (47; 12), nanotechnology (41; 40) and nuclear energy (39; 13).

Time series data on an index of optimism show that energy technologies wind energy, solar energy

and nuclear power are on an upward trend what we call the Copenhagen effect. While both

biotechnology and nanotechnology had seen increasing optimism since 1999 and 2002 respectively, in

2010 both show a similar decline with support holding constant but increases in the percentages of

people saying they make things worse. With the exception of Austria, the index for biotechnology is

positive in all countries in 2010, indicating more optimists than pessimists Germany joining Austria in

being the least optimistic about biotechnology. But in only three countries (Finland, Greece and Cyprus)

do we see an increase in the index from 2005 to 2010.

Nanotechnology

Only 45 per cent of Europeans say they have heard of nanotechnology, which in the survey is described

in the context of consumer products. Six out of ten EU citizens who expressed an opinion support such

applications of nanotechnology, with support varying from over 70 per cent in Poland, Cyprus, Czech

Republic, Finland and Iceland to less than 50 per cent in Greece, Austria and Turkey. For the opponents

of nanotechnology, safety is the pressing concern followed by the perceived absence of benefits.

Biofuels

A comparison of crop based (first generation) biofuels with sustainable (second generation) biofuels

made from non-edible material shows that overall, Europeans are positive towards both types. 78 per

cent of Europeans support crop based biofuels and 89 per cent support sustainable biofuels. It would

appear that debates about the downsides of crop based biofuels on food security, food prices and

destruction of forests for crop cultivation have had only a marginal impact on the publics perceptions.

6

Synthetic biology

Following a description of synthetic biology respondents in the survey were asked Suppose there was

a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your mind whether to vote for or against.

Among the following, what would be the most important issue on which you would like to know more?

Our respondents were asked to select three from the list of seven issues of interest. 73 per cent selected

possible risks; 61 per cent claimed benefits and 47 per cent who will benefit and who will bear the

risks. Information about social and ethical issues was the least frequent choice at 19 per cent. Asked

about their views on whether, and under what conditions, synthetic biology should be approved, of those

respondents who expressed a view 17 per cent said that they do not approve under any circumstances;

21 per cent do not approve except under very special circumstances; 36 per cent approve as long as

synthetic biology is regulated by strict laws and only 3 per cent approve without any special laws.

Overall, Europeans consider synthetic biology a sensitive technology that demands precaution and

special regulations, but an outright ban would not find overwhelming support.

GM food

GM food is still the Achilles heel of biotechnology. The wider picture is of declining support across many

of the EU Member States on average opponents outnumber supporters by three to one, and in no

country is there a majority of supporters. What is driving the continued opposition to GM food? Public

concerns about safety are paramount, followed by the perceived absence of benefits and worry GM

food is seen as unnatural and makes many Europeans uneasy. Across the period 1996-2010, we see,

albeit with fluctuations, a downward trend in the percentage of supporters. Denmark and the UK, at the

higher end of the distribution of support, are exceptions, as is Austria, at the lower end. Those among

the old EU countries with a ban on GM crops in place consistently show low values of support, with Italy

joining the group. In contrast, Member States where GM crops are grown tend to show among the

highest values, suggesting a link between private attitudes and public policies.

Animal cloning for food products

Cloning animals for food products is even less popular than GM food with 18 per cent of Europeans in

support. In only two countries Spain and the Czech Republic does animal cloning attract the support

of three in ten. This contrasts with 14 countries in which support for GM food is above 30 per cent. Is

this an indication of broader public anxieties about biotechnology and food? The idea of the natural

superiority of the natural captures many of the trends in European food production, such as enthusiasm

for organic food, local food, and worries about food-miles. And if unnaturalness is one of the problems

associated with GM food, it appears to be an even greater concern in the case of animal cloning and

food products.

Cisgenics

Cisgenics is the genetic modification of crops adding only genes from the same species or from plants

that are crossable in conventional breeding programmes. It could be employed, for example, in the

cultivation of apples to provide resistance to the common apple diseases and thereby reduce pesticide

use. In all EU countries, cisgenic production of apples receives higher support (55 per cent) than

7

transgenic apples (33 per cent), with the former attracting majority support in 24 countries (including

Austria).

GM food and transgenic apples are both seen to be unnatural by three out of four respondents.

However, support for GM food (27 per cent) is a little lower than for transgenic apples (33 per cent).

Transgenic apples are more likely to be perceived as safe and not to harm the environment. It is likely

that the preamble in the survey describing transgenic apples as a technique that would limit use of

pesticides, and so pesticide residues on the apples would be minimal suggested an attractive benefit

both to food safety and the environment. Cisgenics might be seen as a hypothetical example of the so-

called second generation of GM crops. Here, the benefits of GM apple breeding are achieved with a

technolite process, a consumer benefit is offered and as such it achieves better ratings in terms of

benefits, safety, environment, naturalness, and double the support of GM food.

Regenerative medicine

Developments in regenerative medicine attract considerable support across Europe. 68 per cent of

respondents approve of stem cell research and 63 per cent approve of embryonic stem cell research.

Levels of approval for gene therapy are similar, at 64 per cent. Xenotransplantation an application long

subject to moratoria in various countries now finds approval with 58 per cent of respondents. And the

solid support for medical applications of biotechnology spreads over to non-therapeutic applications.

Moving from repair to improvement, we find that 56 per cent of the European public approves of

research that aims to enhance human performance. However, support for regenerative medicine is not

unconditional. Approval is contingent upon perceptions of adequate oversight and control.

Biobanks

While approximately one in three Europeans have heard about biobanks before, nearly one in two

Europeans say they would definitely or probably participate in one, with Scandinavian countries showing

the most enthusiasm. And people do not seem to have particular worries about providing certain types of

information to biobanks: blood samples, tissue samples, genetic profile, medical records and lifestyle

data elicit similar levels of concern. However, amongst those similar levels there are some nuances. In

twelve countries, providing ones medical records provokes the most worry, and in ten countries it is the

genetic profile that is most worrying. Asked about who should be responsible for protecting the public

interest with regard to biobanks, we find a split between those countries opting for self-regulation (by

medical doctors; researchers; public institutions such as universities or hospitals) and those opting for

external regulation (ethics committees; national governments; international organisations and national

data protection authorities). Broadly speaking, respondents in those countries which show higher levels

of support for biobanks tend to favour external regulation more than self-regulation. In those countries

where biobanks are unfamiliar, self regulation is a more popular way of guarding the public interest. On

the issue of consent, almost seven in ten Europeans opt for specific permission sought for every new

piece of research; one in five for broad consent, and one in sixteen for unrestricted. But of those more

likely to participate in the biobank, some four in ten opt for either unrestricted or broad consent.

8

Governance of science

Europeans views on the governance of science were sought in the context of two examples of

biotechnology: synthetic biology and animal cloning for food products. Respondents were asked to

choose between, firstly, decisions making based on scientific evidence or on moral and ethical criteria,

and secondly, decisions made on expert evidence or reflecting the views of the public. 52 per cent of

European citizens believe that synthetic biology should be governed on the basis of scientific delegation

where experts, not the public decide, and where evidence relating to risks and benefits, not moral

concerns, are the key considerations. However, nearly a quarter of Europeans take the opposite view: it

is the public, not experts, and moral concerns, not risks and benefits, that should dictate the principles of

governance for such technologies (the principle of 'moral deliberation'). For animal cloning (compared to

synthetic biology) some 10 per cent fewer opt for scientific deliberation and 9 per cent more opt for

moral deliberation. It seems that moral and ethical issues are more salient for animal cloning for food

products than for synthetic biology: altogether 38 per cent of respondents choose a position prioritising

moral and ethical issues for synthetic biology, with 49 per cent doing the same for animal cloning for

food. To put this another way, the European public is evenly split between those viewing animal cloning

for food as a moral issue and those viewing it as a scientific issue.

Trust in key actors

The re-building of trust in regulators and industry from the lows in the 1990s is in evidence. On an index

capturing a trust surplus or trust deficit, we find national governments making regulations up 23 per

cent since 2005. Industry developing biotechnology products is up 9 per cent since 2005 and 62 per

cent since 1999, and the EU making laws across Europe is up 14 per cent since 2005. On this index,

university scientists maintain a trust surplus of around 80 per cent. There is a robust and positive

perception of the biotechnology system. It seems fair to conclude that Europeans have moved on from

the crisis of confidence of the mid to late 1990s. It is also notable that both national governments and

the EU carry almost equivalent trust surpluses in the majority of countries. It seems as if the idea of

national regulation within a framework of European laws is accepted amongst the publics of the

European Member States.

Familiarity and engagement

The link between familiarity and engagement with technology is not straightforward. On the one hand,

views of nanotechnology are clearly related to the extent of public familiarity and engagement. Those

who are actively engaged in finding out about nanotechnology tend to be much more inclined to

perceive of it as safe and beneficial and something not to worry about, compared to those for whom

nanotechnology is unfamiliar. On the other hand, when it comes to the two controversial

biotechnologies, GM food and animal cloning in food production, levels of familiarity and engagement are

only weakly related to perceptions of them. These technologies similarly tend to invoke worry, and are

perceived as less beneficial and safe than nanotechnology.

9

Religion and education

Overall, the non-religious are more optimistic about the contribution of technologies to the improvement

of everyday life and are more likely to support human embryonic stem cell research. But when faced

with a conflict between science and religion they are almost evenly split on which pillar of the truth

should prevail not that different to people in the major European religious denominations. Religious

commitment appears to be associated with greater concerns about ethical issues in stem cell research

and with a belief that ethics should prevail over scientific evidence. However, here again there are many

highly religious people who say that science should prevail in such a conflict of opinion.

As to the effect of education the findings show that socialisation in a scientific family and having a

university education in science are associated with greater optimism about science and technology, more

confidence in regulation based on scientific delegation, and more willingness to encourage the

development of both nanotechnology and GM food. However, the findings also show that scientific

socialisation either in the family or at university is not a magic bullet it is not the panacea to the issue

of resistance to innovation. For example, a majority of those coming from a scientific family background

or with a degree in science are not willing to support the development of GM food.

Climate change

Across a number of questions it is apparent that there is widespread concern with climate change, and

more generally with sustainability. Respondents in all countries except two (Latvia and Malta) favour

changes in ways of living over technological solutions, even if this means reduced economic growth. Only

in 7 countries (Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Latvia and Malta) is support for the

changing ways of life solution below the comfortable majority threshold of 55 per cent. In some

countries ( Finland, Denmark, or Switzerland) the support for the changing ways of life solution is much

stronger than the support of the notion that technology will solve climate change (for instance, about six

times stronger in Finland, where only 14 per cent opt for the technological solution and 84 per cent for

the changing ways of life solution). The relatively small percentage of dont know responses shows

that people now feel ready to take a stance.

Whatever peoples view on climate change respondents, the majority is likely to assume that others

share their views and that their views will be reflected in national policies. Given that an individuals

beliefs are reinforced by the support actual or perceived - of others, that so many believe that others

share their views, is an indication of just how difficult is the task of changing beliefs about climate

change.

Public ethics, technological optimism and support for biotechnologies

Analysing the range of questions in the survey that address issues of public ethics the moral and

ethical issues raised by biotechnology and the life sciences we find five clusters of countries. Key

contrast emerge between clusters of countries. First, those that prioritise science over ethics and those

that prioritise ethics over science, and second those countries that are concerned about distributional

fairness and those who are not. In combination these contrasts are related to peoples optimism about

10

the contribution of technologies to improving our way of life and support for regenerative medicines and

other applications of biotechnology and the life sciences. Where ethics takes priority over science,

concerns about distributional fairness lead to a profile of lower support; but in the absence of

sensitivities about distributional fairness, the profile of support is relatively higher. When science taking

priority over ethics is combined with concerns about distributional fairness, then we find only moderate

support; but here again the absence of sensitivities about distributional fairness reveals a profile of high

support.

11

Introduction

Eurobarometer 73.1 is the seventh in a series of surveys of public perceptions of the Life Sciences and

Biotechnology. The series started in 1991 with Eurobarometer 35.1 (INRA 1991) in the twelve Member

States of the European Community. It was followed by the second in 1993, Eurobarometer 39.1 (INRA

1993). In 1996, the third in the series, Eurobarometer 46.1(INRA 1997) covered the fifteen Member

States of the expanded European Union. The fourth in the series, Eurobarometer 52.1 (INRA 2000) was

conducted in 1999, the fifth (Eurobarometer 58.0) in 2002 (Gaskell et al. 2003) and the sixth

(Eurobarometer 63.1) in 2005 (TNS 2005). The new survey in 2010 covers the now 27 Member States of

the European Union plus Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.

The survey questionnaire for EB 73.1 includes key trend questions, designed to assess the stability or

change in aspects of public perceptions over the last ten years or more. It also includes new questions

that capture opinions and attitudes to emerging issues in the field of biotechnology: regenerative

medicine, synthetic biology and cisgenics. And as in 2005 there are questions on nanotechnology in

part because nanotechnology has been heralded as the next strategic technology, but also on account of

its links with biotechnology, as seen in the emergence of the so-called converging technologies. As in

2005 there are questions about human embryonic and other types of stem cell research.

The Eurobarometer on Biotechnology and the Life Sciences, like other systematic survey research

studies, provides a representation of public voices for the European public speaks not with one voice

to policy makers, representatives of industry, journalists, civil society groups, scientists and social

scientists and even to the public themselves. Surveys represent the world in particular ways;

depending on the perspective adopted, the representations will differ. Survey results do not have a

single, obvious and unequivocal meaning. Whether the glass is half full or half empty is a matter of

personal preference. In this report we provide our interpretation. But because other interpretations are

possible, we include the basic data in the Annexes to this report.

The report is divided into three sections. The first provides an analytic description of Europeans'

perceptions of biotechnology in 2010, with, where possible, comparable data from previous surveys to

illustrate trends. This is followed by two Annexes, containing the questionnaire and a codebook of basic

descriptive statistics for each question by country, with a technical note including details of survey

sampling and weighting. In the report we present results across the 32 countries. We also give Europe-

wide summaries for the current 27 EU Member States, with samples weighted to reflect their relative

population sizes. An expanding Europe is an inherent characteristic of these Eurobarometer reports.

However, note that were the summaries to include all 32 countries, they would change very little.

For ease of presentation the majority of results exclude those respondents who registered a dont know

response. In this sense we report findings based on only those who expressed an opinion in the context

of a particular question. However, since the rates of dont know responses vary from question to

question, and from country to country, from about 5 per cent to 35 per cent, we encourage readers to

look at the codebook to assess the impact of differential rates of dont know responses.

12

1. Optimism about technology

The Lisbon declaration of 2000 set a strategic goal for the European Union (EU) to become the most

competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world. The 7th Framework Programme (2007-

2013), with a budget of 53 billion to support research and technological development, was launched to

give a new impetus to increase Europes growth and competitiveness. In 2002, the EUs Heads of State

and Government agreed to the Barcelona target to increase Research and Development to 3 per cent of

GDP.

The European Commission has reaffirmed the importance of innovation and research as one of the key

drivers of economic recovery. One of the seven flagship initiatives in the Europe 2020 strategy is the

Innovation Union and a commitment to improve framework conditions and access to finance for

research and innovation so as to ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services

that create growth and jobs (European Commission 2010a: 3).

But does the European public have the appetite for technology and innovation? Some theorists have

argued that we are in a post-materialist age in which the desire for economic growth is replaced by

concerns for the environment, personal development and civil liberties (Inglehart 1990). Others have

argued that uncritical enthusiasm for science and technology is typical of less developed economies, and

that the publics of the advanced industrial countries become increasingly critical, even sceptical, about

the contribution of science and technology to the quality of life (Durant et al. 2000).

However, such longer term changes in peoples values for which it must be admitted the empirical

evidence is not overwhelming can be reversed by period effects, such as a downturn in the economy.

Rising unemployment and other recessionary impacts focus peoples minds on how the economy can

deliver jobs, prosperity and improve the quality of life.

More prosaically there may be a habituation effect, whereby the novel of the past becomes the taken-

for-granted of the present, and even substantial breakthroughs in the past are no longer seen as such in

contemporary times. Think of personal computers, email and the lack of excitement that greets a new

computer operating system. People also recognize that the promises that accompanied past

developments were often hyperbole, and so they tend to discount similar claims attached to the current

crop of innovations.

In the Eurobarometer survey respondents were asked whether particular technologies will improve our

way of life in the 20 years, will have no effect, or will make things worse, and a dont know response

was accepted but not offered by the interviewer. This question has been asked since 1991 and it not

only provides an indicator of general sentiment towards technology and innovation but also places views

about biotechnology and the life sciences in the context of other technologies. Over the seven waves of

the Eurobarometer on biotechnology some of the target technologies have been retained in the survey,

others have been dropped and new technologies introduced to keep abreast of new developments.

13

In 2010 respondents were asked about eight technologies (the year in which the technology was

introduced is indicated in brackets here). The target technologies are computers and information

technology, and space exploration (from 1991), solar energy (from 1993), nuclear energy (from 1999),

nanotechnology (from 2002), wind energy (from 2005) and brain and cognitive enhancement (new in

2010).

From 1991 to 2005 a split ballot was used for biotechnology, with half of the sample asked about

biotechnology and the other half asked about genetic engineering. In 2010 the alternative descriptions

were combined into biotechnology and genetic engineering.

Generalised sentiment to technology

How optimistic are Europeans about new technologies? Our measures of generalised technological

optimism and pessimism are admittedly rather crude. We take the eight technologies (see above) and

count for each respondent: firstly, the number of technologies that they say will improve our way of life;

and, secondly, the number that will make things worse. We then compute for each country the average

(mean) number of technologies that are given the optimistic judgement (optimism) and the average

(mean) number of technologies that are given the pessimistic judgement (pessimism), and plot them

for the EU27 as a whole, and by country, in Figure 1.

Some caveats are in order. The eight technologies are not claimed to be representative of the full range

of technological innovations they are a partial group. Civil nuclear power is hardly new and, as argued

above, innovation fatigue may have set in amongst sections of the public for computers and information

technology. But all of the technologies chosen may count as being sensitive, i.e. potentially raising

strong sentiments for various reasons beyond their technical characteristics and economic implications.

Our interpretation of the data is that lying behind an individuals score on the scale is a representation

about the role of technologies in contributing to a better or worse future for society. And one might

expect that those countries in which, on average, more technologies are rated as likely to improve our

lives over the coming years, will tend to provide more support for political and economic policies that

support innovation.

14

Figure 1: Generalised technological optimism and pessimism

2.1

1.6

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.6

1.6

1.1

1.4

0.5

1.4

1.5

1.1

0.8

1.1

1.2

0.9

1.6

1.0

0.7

0.8

0.8

1.1

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.7

1.1

3.8

4.2

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.9

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.6

5.7

5.7

4.9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Austria

Switzerland

Turkey

Romania

Lithuania

Portugal

Malta

Ireland

Poland

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Italy

Germany

Iceland

Belgium

Croatia

Netherlands

Bulgaria

France

Latvia

United Kingdom

Greece

Sweden

Hungary

Spain

Cyprus

Slovakia

Denmark

Czech Republic

Finland

Estonia

Norway

EU27

Average (mean) number of technologies

Optimism

Pessimism

15

Figure 1 shows that the greater majority of countries score between 4.5 and 5.5 out of 8 on this

measure of generalised technological optimism, indicating a degree of similarity in average levels of

optimism across European countries. The figure also shows the average (mean) number of pessimistic

responses; here only a small number of countries exceed 1.5. And while there is a negative relationship

between optimism and pessimism, it is not particularly large. The correlation coefficient which compares

optimism and pessimism between respondents (rather than between country-level averages) is -0.44,

where -1 would indicate a perfect one-to-one negative (linear) relationship between optimism and

pessimism, and 0 would indicate no such relationship.

So, is the glass half full or half empty? Does the European public hold a positive representation of

technology and does it depend on the particular technology? Figure 2 gives us some clues. For 7 out of

the 8 technologies optimists outnumber pessimists. Expectations about nuclear power are the exception

with an even split between optimists and pessimists.

Figure 2: Optimism and pessimism regarding eight technologies, EU27

39

41

47

53

59

77

84

87

10

9

29

7

11

7

6

5

39

10

13

20

11

11

4

4

13

40

12

20

20

6

6

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nuclear energy

Nanotechnology

Space exploration

Biotechnology and geneticengineering

Brain and cognitiveenhancement

Computers and informationtechnology

Wind energy

Solar energy

% respondents

Positive effect No effect Negative effect Don't know

Notably, a majority of Europeans are optimistic about biotechnology and genetic engineering. In

comparison, they are more optimistic about brain and cognitive enhancement, computers and

information technology, wind energy and solar energy, but are less optimistic about space exploration,

nanotechnology and nuclear energy.

The contrast between the four so-called strategic technologies of the post-World War II years is striking.

For biotechnology, 53 per cent are optimistic and 20 per cent are pessimistic. The comparable figures for

nuclear power are 39 per cent optimistic and 39 per cent pessimistic. For computers, 77 per cent are

16

optimistic and 11 per cent are pessimistic. For nanotechnology, which was acclaimed as a strategic

technology in the early 2000s, 41 per cent are optimistic and 10 per cent are pessimistic.1

Not surprisingly on account of its novelty, the percentage of dont know responses for nanotechnology

is above 40 per cent, much the same as in 2005. That biotechnology still elicits a dont know response

from one in five (again much the same as in 2005) suggests that either many people have still to make

up their minds about its prospects, or that it is difficult to weigh up pros and cons of the varieties of

biotechnology, for example across medical and agricultural applications.

Brain and cognitive enhancement, now the focus of attention of neuroethicists, is probably relatively

unfamiliar to many of the public (20 per cent give a dont know response), yet the idea of this

technology seems to engender widespread optimism, with optimists outnumbering pessimists by a ratio

of 5 to 1. Later in the survey, respondents are asked for their views on adequate levels of regulation of

research exploring ways of enhancing the performance of healthy people, for example to improve

concentration or to increase memory. The results are discussed in the context of views on regenerative

medicine in Chapter 4 of this report.

Nuclear power continues to be cited as an option in climate change and energy security debates. Here

we find equal percentages of optimists and pessimists (39 per cent). In contrast to the findings of the

Eurobarometer in 2005, in 2010 we find that judgements that it will have no effect have declined from

18 to 10 per cent; the proportion of Europeans saying it will improve our way of life has increased from

32 to 39 per cent; and roughly the same proportion of respondents say it will make things worse, with

an increase of just 2 percentage points to 39 per cent in 2010.

1 Synthetic biology - the latest strategic technology was not included in this question set on account of its relative unfamiliarity. However, in Chapter 2 we report on the European publics perceptions of this development.

17

Trends in technological optimism

To assess the changes in optimism and pessimism over time (1991 to 2010) we use a summary index.

For this we subtract the percentage of pessimists from the percentage of optimists and divide this by the

combined percentage of optimists, pessimists and those who say the technology will have no effect. In

excluding the dont know responses, this index is based on only those respondents who expressed an

opinion. A positive score reflects a majority of optimists over pessimists, a negative score a majority of

pessimists over optimists and a score around zero more or less equal percentages of the two.

This index has the following merits. Firstly, it is an economical way of presenting comparisons between

countries and over time; secondly, with substantial differences in rates of dont know responses across

countries, the raw scores can be misleading; and thirdly, it weights the balance of optimism and

pessimism in relation to all the respondents who express an opinion on the question.

Figure 3: Index of optimism about six technologies2

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

1991 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2010

Year

Inde

x

Solar energy

Wind energy

Computers and IT

Nanotechnology

Biotechnology andgenetic engineeringNuclear energy

The trends in the index of optimism (see Figure 3) show some interesting trajectories. Firstly, for all of

the energy technologies wind and solar energy and nuclear power an upward trend is seen. This

might be termed the Copenhagen effect. The extensive media coverage of climate change and global

warming, making salient the issue of carbon emissions, may have helped increase public optimism about

the contributions of renewable energy sources and nuclear power. At the same time, new issues have

2 The countries included in each score for Europe (weighted according to their relative population sizes) reflect the expanding membership of the EU: thus 1991 and 1993 scores are for the original 12 Member States, 19962002 for EU15, 2005 for EU25 and 2010 for EU27.

18

come to public attention, such as those represented by Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth (Gore

2006).

As an aside, how do those who are optimistic about solar and wind energy the classic sustainable

energy solutions view nuclear power, which is now claimed by some to be in the sustainable category

but completely rejected by others? In the event, the public are divided. While the optimists for solar

energy take the same position on wind energy, those who are optimistic about solar energy are split on

nuclear power between optimism (46 per cent) and pessimism (42 per cent).

In parallel, the second noticeable trend is that of recently declining optimism in biotechnology,

nanotechnology and computers and information technology. While computer and information technology

has been consistently around 80 per cent on the index, there is a small decline in the period 2005-2010.

While both biotechnology and nanotechnology had been on an upward trend since 1999 and 2002

respectively, in 2010 there is a similar decline in optimism. In both cases we see support holding

constant but changes in the percentages of make things worse responses. These increase from 12 to 20

per cent for biotechnology and from 5 to 10 per cent for nanotechnology. Changes come not from a

reduction in dont know responses, but rather a decline in make no difference responses.

Turning to European country-level data, Table 1 shows the index of optimism for biotechnology over the

period 1991 to 2010. The EU15 countries are ordered from the most to the least optimistic in 2010,

followed by the 10 new Member States of 2004, then Romania and Bulgaria and finally Iceland, Norway,

Turkey, Switzerland and Croatia (also ordered from most to least optimistic).

In all countries, with the exception of Austria, the index has positive values, indicating more optimists

than pessimists. But in only three countries (Finland, Greece and Cyprus) do we see an increase in the

index from 2005 to 2010. The table also shows little change in optimism over the last five years in Spain,

Ireland, the UK, France and Estonia, and that the non-EU countries Iceland and Norway stand amongst

the most optimistic countries. But in the rest of Europe there is a consistent decline in optimism about

biotechnology.

19

Table 1: Trends in the index of optimism for biotechnology/genetic engineering

1991 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2010

Spain 82 78 67 61 71 75 74

Sweden - - 42 - 61 73 63

Finland - - 24 13 31 36 59

Portugal 50 77 67 50 57 71 54

Ireland 68 54 40 16 26 53 51

UK 53 47 26 5 17 50 50

Italy 65 65 54 21 43 65 48

France 56 45 46 25 39 49 46

Denmark 26 28 17 -1 23 56 45

Greece 70 47 22 -33 12 19 35

Belgium 53 42 44 29 40 46 32

Luxembourg 47 37 30 25 29 55 32

Netherlands 38 20 29 39 39 47 31

Germany 42 17 17 23 24 33 12

Austria - - -11 2 25 22 -7

Cyprus - - - - - 74 78

Estonia - - - - - 79 76

Malta - - - - - 81 64

Hungary - - - - - 62 58

Czech Rep. - - - - - 71 53

Slovakia - - - - - 55 48

Latvia - - - - - 60 43

Poland - - - - - 59 41

Slovenia - - - - - 47 33

Lithuania - - - - - 66 28

Romania - - - - - - 36

Bulgaria - - - - - - 24

Iceland - - - - - - 79

Norway - - - - - - 70

Turkey - - - - - - 49

Switzerland - - - - - - 32

Croatia - - - - - - 25

20

2. Emerging technologies

2.1 Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is a collective term for a variety of technologies for engineering matter on the atomic

and/or molecular level. Nanotechnology is considered a strategic technology par excellence; its many

uses and vast potentials cover medicines and medical processes as well as electronics, energy, materials,

filtration, consumer goods and food. As nanoscience emerged as a new discipline, scientists and policy

makers became conscious of the need to avoid a repetition of the GM food saga (David and Thompson

2008). In parallel, nanoethics emerged to debate the social, ethical and legal aspects of molecular

engineering. That it continues to be a socially sensitive technology is evidenced by a call of the European

Parliament to ban nanoparticles from food products.

For the Eurobarometer survey it was decided to select an area of nanotechnology that involved products

close to everyday life: cosmetics, sun creams and household cleaning fluids. Nanotechnology was

introduced to respondents in the following way:

Now thinking about nanotechnology: Nanotechnology involves working with atoms and

molecules to make new particles that are used in cosmetics to make better anti-aging creams,

suntan oils for better protection against skin cancer and cleaning fluids to make the home

more hygienic. Despite these benefits, some scientists are concerned about the unknown and

possibly negative effects of nanoparticles in the body and in the environment.

Figure 4 shows that only around 25 per cent of Europeans have engaged with nanotechnology, i.e.

talked about it or searched for information. More than half have not heard of it before the interview.

21

Figure 4: Awareness of nanotechnology, EU27

Not heard55%

Heard only20%

Talked about or searched for information

occasionally22%

Talked about or searched for information frequently

3%

First, we look at the distribution of supporters and opponents of nanotechnology in countries across

Europe. Figure 5 is based on only those respondents who expressed an opinion to question 10 below,

regarding encouragement for nanotechnology3. As can be seen from the figure, six out of ten EU citizens

support nanotechnology. Support varies, between all the countries in the survey, from 83 per cent in

Iceland to 48 per cent in Austria. Note that in the description of nanotechnology, both potential benefits

and risks were mentioned. It would appear that while opponents are concerned about safety issues, in

most countries this is a minority response. In all but three countries an absolute majority support

nanotechnology for consumer products.

3 That is, 63 per cent of respondents across the 32 countries.

22

Figure 5: Encouragement for nanotechnology (excluding DKs)

41484851

5252

535455

5556

60606161626363636464656667676868

74

7777

7883

61

0 20 40 60 80 100

TurkeyAustriaGreece

PortugalSlovenia

MaltaLuxembourgNetherlands

ItalyBelgiumCroatia

BulgariaFrance

GermanyDenmarkSlovakia

SpainSwitzerland

LithuaniaRomania

United KingdomEstonia

LatviaSweden

IrelandNorway

HungaryPolandCyprus

Czech RepublicFinlandIceland

EU27

% respondents who strongly agree or agree that nanotechnology should be encouraged

23

Respondents were asked a number of questions about nanotechnology (similar questions were also

asked about animal cloning for food products and GM food, which will be reported later):

1. Nanotechnology is good for the (NATIONALITY) economy

2. Nanotechnology is not good for you and your family

3. Nanotechnology helps people in developing countries

4. Nanotechnology is safe for future generations

5. Nanotechnology benefits some people but puts others at risk

6. Nanotechnology is fundamentally unnatural

7. Nanotechnology makes you feel uneasy

8. Nanotechnology is safe for your health and your familys health

9. Nanotechnology does no harm to the environment

10. Nanotechnology should be encouraged

For each question, respondents were asked whether they totally agree, tend to agree, tend to disagree

or totally disagree. The first nine questions were designed to tap into four clusters of perceptions of

technologies. The final question, should nanotechnology be encouraged? we take as a measure of

overall support.

Questions 1 and 2 provide an index of the extent of perceived benefit;

Questions 3 and 5 give as index of distributional equity do people perceive this

technology to be fair or unfair in the distribution of both benefits and risks?

Questions 4, 8 and 9 give an index of perceived safety/risk;

And finally, questions 6 and 7 provide an index of worry related to unnaturalness. This

is similar to the affective heuristic (Slovic et al. 2002).

For each respondent, a score was created for each of these four indices of benefit, safety, inequity and

worry (unnatural). Scores range from -1.5 to 1.5, where -1.5 indicates low perceived benefit, low safety,

and absence of both inequity and worry; and 1.5 indicates high perceived benefit, high safety, high

inequity and high worry. Zero marks the notional mid-point on the scale. Note, therefore, that the first

two indices are framed positively, with high scores indicating positive views about the technology,

whereas the second two indices are framed negatively, with high scores indicating concerns about the

technology.

Figure 6 shows average (mean) scores for respondents in EU27 countries, both overall (yellow bars). We

then take the final question, number 10, and split the sample between supporters (those who agree that

nanotechnology should be encouraged) and opponents (those who disagree). In the figure, the

supporters are denoted with green bars and opponents with red bars.

The figure shows that, across the European public (the first bar in each cluster, in yellow), the balance of

opinion is that nanotechnology is somewhat more likely to be beneficial than not; to be unsafe rather

24

than safe; to be inequitable rather than equitable; and not particularly worrying (though equally, not

particularly unworrying). Taken as a whole, perceptions of nanotechnology emerge as rather neutral in

character. But dig beneath the surface and we find division in perceptions between supporters and

opponents. Supporters (denoted by the middle bar in each cluster, in green) are much more likely than

opponents (the last bar, in red) to agree that nanotechnology is beneficial, safe, equitable and not the

cause of worry. When comparing opponents and supporters, the most pronounced contrast is in the

issue of safety. Supporters and opponents are most in agreement on the issue of inequity, which

supporters returning a neutral verdict on this issue, and opponents somewhat concerned.

Multiple regression is a statistical technique that allows us to find out the extent to which the four indices

(benefit, safety, inequity and worry) make a separate (independent) contribution to the explanation of

variation in overall support. If the four indices are making independent contributions to explaining overall

support, then they flag up distinct concerns rather than merely some overall attitude, for example,

technological optimism. The multiple regression4 shows that all four indices make a statistically

significant contribution to the explanation of overall support. Here, safety is by far the most influential,

followed by benefit, worry and lastly inequity.

Figure 6: Perceptions of nanotechnology as beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural, EU27 (excluding DKs)

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5Beneficial Safe Inequitable Unnatural

Ave

rage

(mea

n) sc

ore

Overall Supporters Opponents

4 Specifically, we used a binary logistic regression model, with the response variable dichotomised into agree or totally agree that nanotechnology should be encouraged, versus disagree or totally disagree that it should be encouraged. Respondents answering dont know to this question were excluded from this analysis. Statistically significant results are so at the 1% significance level.

25

2.2 Biofuels

When biofuels made from edible crops were first introduced, they were heralded as one of the more

exciting applications of modern biotechnology, offering an apparently sustainable means to produce

energy resources and lower dependence on Middle-Eastern oil, as well as providing farmers in Europe

and the US with a new market. The EU announced targets for the introduction of biofuels, and motorists,

even airlines, sought out biofuels as a response to climate change. Relatively quickly, some unintended

consequences became apparent, with negative impacts appearing in the developed world increased

speculation in commodity crops and food prices and in the developing world increased destruction of

rain forests for crop cultivation.

In our questions on biofuels, respondents were asked sequentially about the first generation of crop

based biofuels and then about the second generation of more sustainable biofuels. The introductions

went as follows:

(First generation)

Lets speak now about biofuels. Biofuels are made from crops like maize and sugar cane that

are turned into ethanol and biodiesel for airplanes, cars and lorries. Unlike oil, biofuels are

renewable, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the European Union less

dependent on imported oil. Critics, however, say that these biofuels take up precious

agricultural land and may lead to higher food prices in the European Union and food shortages

in the developing world.

(Second generation)

Now, scientists are working on more sustainable biofuels. These can be made from plant

stems and leaves - the things we dont eat, or from trees and algae. With these second

generation biofuels, there is no longer the need to use food crops.

Figure 7 summarises the balance of opinion about two generations of bio-fuels across the European

Union. Overall, feelings are positive towards all kinds of biofuels across Europe. 72 per cent of Europeans

support crop based biofuels. It would appear that the discussions about the downsides of crop-based

biofuels have not had much impact.

However, Europeans are even more optimistic about the second generation biofuels: 83 per cent

approve of sustainable biofuels made from non-edible material.

26

Figure 7: Opinions regarding first generation and sustainable biofuels, EU27

51

34

32

38

7

13

4

7

7

8

20 40 60 80 100

Sustainable biofuels

First generation biofuels

% respondents

Should definitely be encouraged Should probably be encouragedShould probably not be encouraged Should definitely not be encouragedDon't know

Figure 8 shows the levels of approval towards biofuels by country, ordered according to their overall

levels of support for sustainable biofuels. Respondents in all countries support sustainable bio-fuels more

than the crop based variety. In every country the majority support traditional biofuels, with highest level

of support in Slovakia, Denmark, Hungary and Baltic States (more than 80 per cent). Hence, there is an

overwhelming preference for such biofuels across Europe. Large gaps between the approvals of the two

generations of biofuels emerged in Scandinavia and Central Europe. Probably the term sustainable is

considered particularly favourable in these countries while in countries such as Portugal or Turkey, where

differences are much less, the issue of sustainability has not gained such prominence.

27

Figure 8: Support for first generation and sustainable biofuels (excluding DKs)

60

55

70

76

81

57

68

73

83

85

70

81

78

84

79

82

86

77

84

67

88

87

77

75

68

91

87

91

78

91

86

88

78

67

74

78

83

85

86

87

87

88

88

88

88

89

89

91

91

92

92

93

93

93

93

93

94

94

94

94

95

95

97

97

98

89

0 20 40 60 80 100

Turkey

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Italy

Austria

Malta

Germany

Greece

Romania

Portugal

France

Czech Republic

Belgium

Spain

Bulgaria

United Kingdom

Estonia

Slovenia

Croatia

Norway

Hungary

Poland

Sweden

Netherlands

Iceland

Latvia

Ireland

Slovakia

Finland

Lithuania

Cyprus

Denmark

EU27

% respondents

Sustainable biofuelsFirst generation biofuels

28

2.3 Synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is an emerging field in which scientists seek to turn biology into an engineering

discipline. Rather than introducing one or a few genes into existing organisms, they want to construct

novel organisms and their genomes from scratch, using genetic building blocks that ideally could be

freely combined. For example, the scientist Craig Venter and colleagues in May 2010 announced that

they had managed to introduce a functioning fully synthetic genome into a bacterium. Such results

currently meet with considerable media attention, but when it comes to public perceptions, it must be

assumed that synthetic biology has hardly entered public awareness. Nevertheless, and not unlike

nanotechnology, scientists are concerned that the new field could meet public resistance. Apart from

moral considerations over creating life, a potentially sceptical public prompted scientists and regulators

to address ethical and social issues at a very early stage despite the lack of almost any current practical

applications.

In this section, we ask how people deal with emerging technologies such as synthetic biology that

still are unfamiliar to them. Confronted by such an innovation, what information is important to them?

How and in what ways does familiarity with the technology influence its evaluation? What is important to

people when it comes to decision-making and regulation?

Based on the assumption that synthetic biology still is widely unknown, respondents in the

Eurobarometer were, first of all, presented the following description:

Synthetic biology is a new field of research bringing together genetics, chemistry and

engineering. The aim of synthetic biology is to construct completely new organisms to make

new life forms that are not found in nature. Synthetic biology differs from genetic engineering

in that it involves a much more fundamental redesign of an organism so that it can carry out

completely new functions.

Respondents were then asked whether they had heard anything about synthetic biology before, and if

they had, whether they had talked with anyone about it or searched for further information. The results,

shown in Figure 9, indicate that synthetic biology is an unfamiliar technology to most Europeans. 83 per

cent indicate that they have not heard about it. Out of those having heard about it (17 per cent), 8 per

cent say that they have (passively) heard but not talked about it nor searched for any information. Only

9 per cent have talked about or searched for information occasionally or more. The innovation is most

familiar in Switzerland (30 per cent having heard) and least familiar in Turkey (10 per cent having

heard).

29

Figure 9: Awareness of synthetic biology, EU27

Not heard83%

Heard only8%

Talked about or searched for information

occasionally8%

Talked about or searched for information frequently

1%

Even if people are unfamiliar with a technology, they nevertheless are sometimes called upon to make

up their minds. While it makes little sense to ask people whether they support an unknown technology or

not, it is worthwhile asking what information they would be interested in to learn more about the new

development. What pieces of information do they regard as relevant, and what questions would they like

to be answered?

Respondents were presented with the following scenario:

Suppose there was a referendum about synthetic biology and you had to make up your mind

whether to vote for or against. Among the following, what would be the most important issue

on which you would like to know more?

Respondents were offered a list of seven issues and asked to choose the three options that were of most

interest to them. 84 per cent of those asked5 indeed chose three questions. The remaining 16 per cent

chose fewer issues; this group consisted predominantly of respondents who gave dont know, none or

other responses. There are considerable country differences in these responses. The highest number of

such dont know responses is found in Turkey (41 per cent); In the remaining countries the proportion

of such responses ranges from 6 per cent (Czech Republic) to 22 per cent (Latvia). To ensure

comparable base rates, for the following analyses only those respondents who chose three of the

following issues are included.

5 The questions on synthetic biology were part of a split ballot, i.e. only half of respondents were asked.

30

Table 2: Issues about which respondents would like to know more in relation to synthetic biology, EU27 (excluding DKs)

Issue % respondents selecting the issue

What are the possible risks 73

What are the claimed benefits 61

Who will benefit and who will bear the risks 47

What the scientific processes and techniques are 37

What is being done to regulate and control synthetic biology 34

Who is funding the research and why 28

What is being done to deal with the social and ethical issues involved 19

Other/none 1

Note: percentages sum to 300 because respondents chose three pieces of information

Clearly, potential risks and benefits related to synthetic biology are of upmost interest to respondents.

However, all the other issues are of interest to a not insignificant proportion of the European publics.

Remarkably, information about social and ethical issues clearly comes last in the list, while the scientific

processes involved meet considerable interest.

The most frequent out of 35 possible combinations are risks, benefits and the distribution of risks and

benefits (16 per cent); risks, benefits and scientific processes (11 per cent); risks, benefits and

regulation (9 per cent); and risks, benefits and funding (7 per cent). All other combinations are less

frequent (less than 5 per cent). The most frequent combinations all include interest in information on

both risks and benefits.

Risks and benefits are of high interest in all countries. Germany is the only country where interest in

benefits is higher than in risks; in all other countries risks are of highest interest. While in Belgium, the

Czech Republic, Estonia and France, interest in risks almost double that in benefits, in most other

countries the interests in risks and benefits are more balanced.

Figure 10 highlights the importance of risks and benefits relative to other issues in different European

countries. While in Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Malta, risks and benefits combined represent the

most important concern, there are other countries where issues such as the distribution of risks and

benefits, scientific details, control and regulation, funding, or social and ethical issues play a more

prominent role. Of all countries, interest in the distribution of risks and benefits is highest (more than 60

per cent) in the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and in Slovakia; interest in scientific details is most

pronounced (more than 50 per cent) in the Czech Republic, in Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia; a demand

for information on control and regulation is particularly high (more than 40 per cent) in Sweden, France,

Iceland and Switzerland; the issue of funding attracts most interest (more than 30 per cent) in Romania,

Luxemburg and Ireland; and social and ethical issues are of highest interest (more than 30 per cent) to

respondents in the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.

31

Figure 10: Priority given to finding out about risks and benefits (versus other issues) in relation to synthetic biology6

194

192

187

185

184

182

182

176

173

174

174

172

171

170

172

170

167

164

164

163

161

161

155

157

155

154

152

149

147

145

144

143

163

105

107

113

114

115

117

118

121

125

125

125

126

127

127

128

130

132

134

135

136

138

139

142

143

144

146

147

149

153

155

156

156

133

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Netherlands

Czech RepublicSweden

SwitzerlandSlovenia

BelgiumIreland

United Kingdom

LuxembourgEstonia

Latvia

Norway

Denmark

France

Iceland

Slovakia

Turkey

FinlandPoland

CroatiaGermany

Austria

Romania

BulgariaItaly

HungaryCyprus

SpainMalta

Portugal

Lithuania

Greece

EU27

% respondents

Risks and benefitsOther issues

6 Note: Percentages within each country sum to 300 because respondents have chosen three pieces of information. Only those respondents who chose three pieces of information are included in this graph: those who responded dont know or who mentioned only one or two types of information are excluded from the graph. 32

Should synthetic biology be supported or not?

Finally, respondents were asked about their views on whether, and under what conditions, synthetic

biology should be approved. Not surprisingly, a substantial percentage across Europe (23 per cent) say

they dont know (9 per cent in Greece, 43 per cent in Turkey). The remaining respondents, however, are

willing to voice a view despite the technologys unfamiliarity. Some (17 per cent) say that they do not

approve under any circumstances and 21 per cent do not approve except under very special

circumstances. More than a third (36 per cent) approve as long as synthetic biology is regulated by strict

laws and only 3 per cent fully approve and do not think that special laws are necessary. Overall, it seems

safe to say that Europeans consider synthetic biology a sensitive technology that demands for precaution

and special laws and regulations, but an outright ban would not find overwhelming support.

Figure 11 shows that, across Europe, the numbers of those approving and non-approving are roughly

equal, an indication that synthetic biology potentially may become a controversial issue. Furthermore,

the picture of a divided Europe emerges: the proportions of those approving and non-approving vary

considerably. While in half of the countries under consideration, supporters outnumber critics, the

opposite is true for the other half of the countries. People in central European countries such as

Germany, Slovenia, Austria and the Czech Republic (as well as Iceland) are particularly cautious (50 per

cent or more do not approve at all or only under very special circumstances). Support, in contrast, is

more frequent in Southern (Portugal, Spain) and Eastern countries (Romania, Estonia, Hungary), as well

as in Ireland. In these latter countries, the majority of respondents express approval of the technology if

regulated by strict laws.

33

Figure 11: Approval of and ambivalence towards synthetic biology

24

38

29

35

23

19

12

19

26

20

13

43

25

35

12

31

19

24

31

17

36

16

9

25

19

15

12

17

14

10

11

19

23

27

20

18

18

17

16

15

13

11

9

8

5

5

4

4

1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-5

-5

-7

-7

-7

-14

-15

-16

-19

-20

-20

-22

1

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Portugal

Ireland

SpainRomania

Estonia

Hungary

BelgiumFrance

LuxembourgUnited Kingdom

Norway

Turkey

Italy

Malta

Denmark

Lithuania

SlovakiaSwitzerland

Poland

Netherlands

BulgariaSweden

GreeceLatvia

Croatia

CyprusFinland

Czech RepublicAustria

SloveniaIceland

Germany

EU27

Net a

ppro

val

N

et d

isap

prov

al

net % respondents

Approve' minus 'do not approve'Dont know

34

The grey bars indicate percentages of dont know responses. Red bars indicate the difference between

approval and non-approval with negative values indicating higher proportions of non-approval and

positive values indicating higher proportions of approval. Do not approve comprises do not approve

under any circumstances and do not approve except under very special circumstances, and Approve

comprises approve as long as this is regulated by strict laws and fully approve and do not think that

special laws are necessary.

How is familiarity with synthetic biology related to the technologys evaluation? Those who have heard

about synthetic biology are much more likely to approve, as long as it is regulated by strict laws. Those

who have not heard about the innovation are both more likely to so say that they dont know or that

they do not approve under any circumstances. The fact that those familiar with synthetic biology are

more supportive should be interpreted with caution though; it is only a small group of respondents who

have heard about it. It is possible that familiarity leads to more support, but it is also possible that it is a

technophile avant-garde that because of its affinity to and support of technologies has heard about

synthetic biology7 in the first place. Whether familiarity will lead to more support for a broader public,

remains an open question.

In summary, a large majority of Europeans is unfamiliar with synthetic biology, giving us the opportunity

to investigate how European citizens deal with fundamentally unknown issues. Asked what information

they would like to be offered, risks and benefits are the preferred options across Europe. However, other

issues such as the distribution of risks and benefits, funding, scientific details, regulation and social and

ethical issues also represent important concerns to relevant proportions of the European public. When

it comes to the evaluation of synthetic biology, Europe seems to be evenly split: the proportion of those

approving of synthetic biology equal those not approving. About half of the countries included are

predominantly cautious, while the other half is predominantly supportive. It should be noted, though,

that support is almost always conditional on strict laws and regulation.

However, Europeans, on the whole, are not technophobic. They want to be informed about what to

expect from the innovation and to ensure prudent regulation. While those familiar with synthetic biology

are more likely to express (conditional) approval than those unfamiliar, it remains an open question

whether increasing familiarity with the topic will make European citizens more supportive of synthetic

biology in general or not.

7 Means for technology optimism seem to support this view: those having heard of synthetic biology are more optimistic about other technologies than those who have not heard (not heard of synthetic biology M = 4.78, SD = 2.14; passive awareness: M = 5.51, SD = 1.90; active awareness: M = 5.44, SD = 2.06).

35

3. Biotechnologies for food production

3.1 GM food

20 years after the first EU directive on deliberate release was released, the issue of GM crops and food is

still unresolved. Only two crops have formal approval for cultivation Monsantos MON 810 Maize and,

most recently, BASFs Amflora potato. At present only six countries have planted GM crops Spain, the

Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Poland and Slovakia about 95,000 hectares in total in 20098,

compared to 134 million hectares world wide. However, currently six countries have bans on GMOs using

the safeguard clause: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg. Italy has said that

it will defy the EC and refuse to allow GM crop to be grown, but has not done so formally. Confronted by

this opposition, the European Commission is taking the subsidiarity route. Member States, it is proposed,

will have the legal right to decide whether to cultivate GM crops or not (European Commission 2010b).

GM food was introduced to respondents in the following way:

Lets speak now about genetically modified (GM) food made from plants or micro-organisms

that have been changed by altering their genes. For example a plant might have its genes

modified to make it resistant to a particular p